United States v. Jones

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Vincent Jones, Defendant-Appellant.

Argued
May 16, 2017

Appeal
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No.
3:15-cr-00048-JD-MGG-l - Jon E. DeGuilio, Judge.

Before
BAUER, Flaum, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

BAUER,
Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant
Vincent Jones was convicted on one count of possession of a
firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal,
Jones challenges the denials of his motions to suppress the
guns found in his home. We affirm.

I.
BACKGROUND

Jones
lived with his girlfriend, Jennifer Kelley, and her three
children in a mobile home located in Westville, Indiana. On
June 5, 2013, Kelley's daughter ("MK") went to
a neighbor's residence to call the police to report that
Jones sexually assaulted her. Officers James Gunning and
Jason Yagelski of the Westville Police Department were
dispatched to the scene. There, both officers encountered
Kelley and MK. Kelley told the officers that she was afraid
of Jones; the officers transported Kelley and MK to the
police department for further inquiry.

At the
police department, MK told the officers that she had been
sexually assaulted by Jones for several years. Kelley told
the officers that Jones was a convicted felon who had
tendencies of being violent and aggressive, that he had guns
in a safe in their shared bedroom, and that she feared for
her life and the lives of her children. The officers ran a
criminal history check, which confirmed that Jones was a
convicted felon.

The
Kelleys and the officers returned to the residence with three
additional officers: James Jackson, Brian Piergalski, and
Corey Chavez. The officers were greeted by Jones, who opened
the door. Officer Gunning observed knives on a counter and
told Jones that he needed to vacate the premises, but allowed
him to retrieve his personal belongings. Jones followed the
officers' instructions to step outside of the home. An
officer immediately handcuffed Jones and escorted him to a
picnic table located ten to twenty feet from the entrance of
the residence. Two officers remained with Jones.

With
Jones being detained, the officers presented Kelley with a
consent to search form. She signed the form and agreed to a
warrantless search of her "residence and all rooms
including enclosed boxes, safes etc. to clear the home of
possible weapons and/or drugs."

Officer
Piergalski searched Kelley and Jones' shared bedroom. In
the bedroom, he saw two gun safes (a smaller safe on top of a
larger one), boxes of ammunition, and empty gun holsters. He
viewed several guns in the smaller safe, which was partially
open. He opened the safe's door further to better see the
guns. Officer Jackson observed that the smaller safe's
door was open a couple of inches.

After
seeing the contents of the open safe and in consultation with
a state prosecutor, the officers ceased the search and sought
a search warrant. The LaPorte County Superior Court issued a
search warrant to search the home and the contents of the
safe for evidence of sexual assault and firearms.

The
officers conducted a full search of the home and seized
twelve firearms, over a thousand rounds of ammunition,
seventeen clips, and several firearm scopes. Jones was
arrested and charged with one count of possession of a
firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(1).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Jones
moved to suppress the products of the search; the district
court referred the case to a magistrate judge. At the
hearing, Jones argued that Kelley&#39;s consent to search was
invalid against him because the officers did not ask him for
consent, and he did not consent, citing Georgia v.
Randolph,547 U.S. 103 (2006). Jones contended that the
first search was illegal and the search pursuant to the
warrant was tainted by the warrantless search. The magistrate
judge rejected these arguments, concluding that
Randolph was not applicable because Jones failed to
object to the search when it occurred. The magistrate judge
also found that because the initial search was conducted with
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.